When Minneapolis teachers settled a 14-day strike in March, they celebrated a provision in their new contract that was meant to protect teachers of color from being laid off due to their race.
The policy has been denounced as racist and unconstitutional by conservative media. A legal group is trying to get teachers and taxpayers to file lawsuits to get rid of the language. There is no imminent danger of anyone losing their job when the dispute is ginned up by the teachers union. The feud is just months away from arguments in two Supreme Court cases that could change affirmative action.
The president of the teachers unit at the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers said that the people who want to take down teachers unions are now defending it for whites. The right wing is making this up. We could not be prouder of this language.
Recent coverage in conservative platforms such as the local news website Alpha News, Fox News nationally and the Daily Mail internationally sparked criticisms from prominent figures, including Donald Trump Jr. Walker said it was an example of why government unions should be abolished.
Critics say that the contract language doesn't explicitly say that white teachers would be laid off first. Alumni of historically Black and Hispanic colleges, as well as teachers who are members of populations underrepresented among licensed teachers in the District, are exempt from the contract. More than half of the students in the district are from racial minorities.
It is important for a district that suffers from stubborn achievement gaps to have teachers and support staff of color. She knows of two other Minnesota districts with similar provisions and that her union fought for years to get the protection added to their contract.
Many districts across the U.S. are struggling with declining teacher numbers. There are nearly 300 unfilled positions in Minneapolis as teachers and students prepare to go back to school and the language won't take effect until the next academic year.
It's just one small step towards equity that doesn't begin to make up for teachers of color leaving the district because they felt disrespected.
Lindsey West is a fifth grade teacher at Clara Barton Community School who identifies as Black and Indigenous.
West believes that students of color benefit from having teachers that look like them, but she also believes that diversity can be good for white students. She said that she was the first teacher of color for black or white students.
West said that they wanted to have kids from all demographic groups having experiences with people of different background and cultures.
Rochelle Cox declined to be interviewed.
James Dickey, senior trial counsel at the Upper Midwest Law Center, said that the provision to lay off white teachers first is a big problem under the 14th amendment. Black Lives Matter posters and COVID-19 mask mandates have been the subject of litigation.
The group is considering a lawsuit and has had a lot of people in Minneapolis contact them to say they are upset that their tax dollars could be used to support a racist agenda.
The 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as the Wygant case bars such provisions.
The Wygant case was about a teachers contract in Jackson, Michigan. Jackson could not make cuts that would lead to a reduction in the number of minority personnel in the district. White teachers were laid off while some teachers of color were retained. The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution was violated by the layoffs.
Andrew Crook, spokesman for the American Federation of Teachers, said he didn't know of anything similar to the Minneapolis wording in contracts in other states, though he said some contracts provide exceptions from straight seniority rules for teachers in hard to fill specialties.
The officials with other national public employee unions and professional associations didn't reply to requests for comment.
The Minneapolis dispute could be affected by two affirmative action cases that will be argued before the Supreme Court in October. There are challenges to the consideration of race.
Affirmative action has been reviewed by the high court several times over the past four decades and has generally been upheld, but with limits. The practice is facing its greatest threat yet with three new conservative justices on the court.
The Minneapolis language seems designed to survive a court challenge, according to a professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law.
When there are valid objectives to be achieved in ultimately seeking quality for all human beings, the US Supreme Court has approved affirmative action. Will this concept be upheld by the courts due to the more conservative stance on the Supreme Court? I don't know what to say on that.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
